What is the degree of seperation from Guiliani and Hugo. One degree for Bracewell & Giuliani lobbied for and received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Citgo, Venezuela's state owned, Hugo owned, oil company.

Whats the degree of separation between the Bin Ladin family and Bush?

Hey, what a fun game!

Cheers!

Amazing how the trolls like to try and change the subject.

leo, leo...

folks - cue the footage of rummy and saddam!

do you really want to go there?

Is edwards smiling because Glover has his hand down the front of Edwards' pants? What's up with that?

ERIC - Same as the Kennedy family and Hitler. Literally.

Cheerio

kjstrouble, that is all that liberals can do, ie, change the subject and avoid actual debate on point.

Lets see, Rumsfeld was photographed smiling and shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein. They were literally beaming at each other. Everyone in the room was pretty uncomfortable because it looked like Rummy and Soddom were about to go at each other like a pair of passionately gay weasels in heat. Back in Soddom's palace that night, I think the degree of separation between those two was zero.

Look at the photograph again. Can anyone honestly say that their gaydar wasn't going off the chart?

And then Rumsfeld became W's Sec Def. hmmmm, what can we make of that?

quite amazing - even worse than guilt by association. Guilt by association of those you associate with. Pathetic..

kstrouble: Amazing how the trolls like to try and change the subject.

What was the subject again? I thought it was something to the effect of... If Person A is friendly with Person B, and Person B is friendly Person C, we are to assume that Person A is also friendly with Person C.

That is, of course, a stupid thing to think if that's all the information you have. But that does seem to be the implication.

Leo:

Did you get permission/clearance from Matt ot Mark on this post?

Because this makes the whole blogs for bush look totally stupid.

Hey, Glover's a kook, and Edwards is a kook. It's only logical that they should be buds.

Let us not get all spun up about "Bumper Sticker" Johnny. He's not going anywhere but back to his America after the primaries are over. Kerry's not around this time to offer this goober the veep spot...

As long as you don't mention he is from North Carolina, keefer. Might have to go ballistic if ya do :)

Aaron,

You can see that in that old, grainy photograph?

yeah Aaron! Rumsfeld was friend with Saddam a LONG time ago - so it doesn't matter anymore..

This post is great - its leading to some of the weakest statements by these blogers to date - and thats saying something...

As long as you don't mention he is from North Carolina, keefer.

He's originally from SC, William, so you're safe. I, however, have deep roots in SC. I even have the state flag tattooed(sp?) on my right arm, ala Aaron Tippin...

yeah Aaron! Rumsfeld was friend with Saddam a LONG time ago - so it doesn't matter anymore.. LOL! Oh so time now takes away wrong doings eh? Necessary with all the conservative pasts out there i suppose. "Sure he was doing crystal meth with a gay hooker, but that was a LONG time ago..." TOO FUNNY

Is it tattoo confession time?

Perhaps the lefty's trying to divert attention by bringing up the photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam would like to explain the photos of Madeline Albright toasting Kim Jong Il or the photo of Wesley Clark exchanging hats with with Serbian war criminal Ratko Mladic.

As for Rummy and Saddam, perhaps they also should read history a bit more. Did they forget that it was under Carter's administration that he came to power and was given the green light by Carter himself for waging war with Iran?

Be careful where you ask to go, lefty's. Your heroes have more than their fair share of skeletons.

Right in a Left World: Jimmuh, What Have You Done?

b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,but Republicans do it too!

Maybe the point is that showing snarky little picture series like this is completely meaningless. Lord knows that international relations causes political leaders to interact with all kinds of slimy characters. And who gives two hells about Danny Glover anyway? The guy's a freakin B/C list actor by now.
I personally am baffled by the blindness political affiliation seems to cause in America. When Michael Moore (who looks like that fat annoying kid from high school with a face that was covered in potato chip grease) puts out some stupid crap movie conservatives will wrongly presumptively deny the whole thing while liberals will wrongly declare that there is a major point to be made. And when Ann Coulter (who looks kinda like a tranny) puts out poorly researched and specious claims of the opposite ideology, both groups switch sides. The truth of the matter is that politicians are scum and that the only political pundit who should be given the time of day is one with a PhD.
Spitting out the same old lines that these massive Washington PR firms known as the DNC and the RNC undermines the complexity of the real issues. How many times are Americans gonna scream "Right to Life" and "Right to Choice" at one another before they read the major Supreme Court case law on abortions (yes, there is more than Roe v. Wade)? How many years is it gonna take before people start admitting to themselves that the other side of the argument is supported by millions and millions of people with full command of their faculties?
Everyone has the capacity to be smart so stop with the use of insults like "conservative blowhard" or "liberal idiots". They only serve to cut off discussion and are typically employed by those people who have grown angry that they can't sufficiently respond to an argument. Most Americans only know as much about politics as they see in the news and regardless of whether you get your news from FoxNews or MSNBC or anywhere in between, the amount of information required to make an intelligent argument for or against a particular position is vastly greater than you'll be exposed to. A suggestion that has been successful in my own experience is to read the findings of different authors in peer-reviewed journals. You're assured of serious intellectual authority behind the vast majority of those claims.

This post is great - its leading to some of the weakest statements by these blogers to date - and thats saying something...

Well then, kblockhead, I guess they're--not there or their--stooping to your--not yore or you're--level.

Pretty bad, Dr. Retard--one sentence, three errors a third-grader wouldn't make. You're--not yore or your--a sorry-ass liar. A phony. A girly-boy...

Hugo Chavez is a current, sworn enemy of the United States, not to mention a socialist thug who seizes property, quite literally at the point of a gun, and closes down opposition media.

This isn't yesterday's news, it's today's news.

Despite all this, Danny Glover cozies up to Chavez and would have Chavez' baby, if he could. He even gets Chavez to front millions for a movie that will propagandize socialist ideals, and put the U.S. in a bad light.

Given all that, Edwards still embraces Glover, and Glover embraces Edwards.

Again, do the math.

steve - that was exactly my point i was being sarcastic...

The shame in all this, Leo, is that you had to specifically point it out to the Libs.

Either they didn't get it, or didn't want to get it. Both are usual for Libs/progressives.

Though, next time, you might want to use crayons. I wonder if Mark or Matt can find a plugin that does that? ;)

Maybe next we can play "Six degrees of Jack Abramoff."

so Bush embraces Bandar who is closely connect to the Bin Laden Family. So obviously Bush LOOOVESS Osama. Wonderful logic you have got going there Leo = you sound like a 4th grader

Leo, you still haven't offered any "math" for babyeatingliberal's (my, what an offensive nic) original question -- what is the degree of separation between Giuliani and Chavez?

Unlike Glover, Giuliani critizes rather than praises Chavez. But that doesn't stop him from taking his money -- like Glover, but unlike Edwards. How does your math figure in there?

I'm certainly not inclined to vote for Edwards, but I would like to know what he thinks about Chavez. I can find no quote by him on the subject at all. Likewise, I'd like to know how Giuliani rationalizes the fact that his law firm has made hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying for a wholly owned subsidiary of Venezuela's national oil company.

Max,

You Democrats wouldn't like that - had you purchased your copy of "Caucus of Corruption", you'd know that Democrats were neck deep in Abramoff.

Who can forget this little gem of a speech as Chavez stood on our soil addressing the UN, of which, without US funding, wouldn't even exist. And did Bush decry any of this speech, no.

The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time," [flips through the pages, which are numerous] "I will just leave it as a recommendation.

It reads easily, it is a very good book, I'm sure Madame [President] you are familiar with it. It appears in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German. I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house.

The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house......"And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." [crosses himself] "And it smells of sulfur still today.

My prediction is that left will implode by '08. Their perceived mandate of '06, and their inability to accomplish anything other than furthering the divide of partisan politics and demonstrated ignorance of National Security will
become embarrasingly apparent in '08.

Hey, ATime...I've got some great meds for the bile that keeps rising up in your esophagus...
that's gonna eventually play hell with your throat.

Neocon,

Would you like to make a bet? I'm willing to bet literally every single thing I own that a Democrat will win the White House in 08. No Republican stands even an inkling of a snowball's chance in hell. Why? Because of the major fuck ups of this Republican GOP. People are going to vote opposite despite any issues that the Repubs or Dems are for or against. People will simply vote Dem just in order to not relive Bush.

But seriously, I'd very much like to make a real bet with you on that.

I'm willing to bet literally every single thing I own that a Democrat will win the White House in 08. - colin

I just don't need a double wide trailer. Thanks though.

Ohhhh that one hurt Neocon. No actually I live in a very nice apartment, not that its any of your business. I can see your obviously too scared to take the bet because you know you will lose it.

Tell me, how do you wake up in the morning and not trip all over the place? What with that huge Bush in 08! blindfold around your eyes?

On the subject of this post...just more bullshit from the B4B crew, designed to have neocons like yourself jumping up and down saying "Yeehaw! We got one of 'em! Yeehaw!".

Because you are with someone does not mean that you assosciate with their assosciates. To assume that is so godawfully retarded, I can't even begin to comprehend it.

What with that huge Bush in 08! blindfold around your eyes? - colin

Please tell me you know that Bush can not run for re-election in '08.

"Yeehaw! We got one of 'em! Yeehaw!".

You're not profiling are you? You know how liberals hate profiling.

Obviously, but I'm sure that wouldn't stop you from campaigning to extend term limits and re-elect Bush again. You're that stupid afterall.

Oh, and I'm the one profiling? Really? I didn't know the phrase "Yee Haw" was said by a single group of people and no one else, my bad, here I was thinking people who speak english can say the words Yee Haw, damn how stupid of me.